This is merely a sole idea as to the discourse of how time reflects in math, philosophical and in cosmology, quantum mechanics....etc.

Time Theory Time is the accountable action of existence. It is not linear, circular or string in it's action. The state of existence is multidimensional, therefore the accountable action will be verifiable in all states of existence. This is evident and clear with private time, public time, world time, real time, mean time, philosophical time, physiological time, pica time, nano time, micro time, space time, sidereal time, Hubble time, mathematical time, as well as all other forms of accountable existence. Including those that are yet to be determined. To act upon the means of time in accountable action, it will justify and satisfy the curiosities of anything physical, perceived and seen, do indeed exist. This also means that any plane we are able to confirm time and it's accountable action, we can confirm existence. Actual mapping the accountable action in a physical state will simplify physics, theories, metaphysics, music theory as well as a general human understanding. First let's define existence: 1. The fact of existing 2. absolute existence in a complete or perfect state, lacking no essential characteristic; essence. 3. to have specified significance 4. Something such as an object, an idea, or a symbol that exists. 5. the state or fact of existence. There is a constant dissatisfaction between science and the philosophical natures when we address time. There are physical, mental and unknown facts of existence. To view time as linear, circular or string, would be to say that we as humans existing on this day and equally for animals, for fowl and for insects, sea life, vegetation,matter and space... that we all do this in the same time line, all at the same time. Every living thing on this planet and any other as well as all existence are tabulated on a scale of existence, But I see their existence to be calibrated by the action of the time scale set for that existence.

Time is relative to the action of existence, therefore it is the existence that is relative to time. Each on it's own bearing in accordance with the accountable action. Perception of it's existence is not relative, but simply the fact of it's existence is monumental on every level of existence and to substantiate it's existence with accountable action. As variables of existence alter with change or are effected by change, it proves with accountable action or Time. Then the level of existence is altered not the accountable action, Accountable action is scaled either by speed or by mass and/ or by the manipulation of either. But in relation to the quantified energies that occur, by mass/energy, this will identify that energy and mass are equivalent to 0 and beyond. But not relative to Time, as String Theory can relate to. On Einsteins theory of relativity, the construction of such a lot is not going by the wayside, understand that many discoveries have and will be made from that pivotal point, his theory does apply to our confined limitations, but I feel they do not apply to the realm of Time. His theory of relativity denotes his undisclosed theory of Einsteins Train. Which Peter Lynds can recognize as well. However in regard to Lynds findings or understanding, Mass/ energy index must be identified by an accountable action.... with Time or it's equivalent on any level or dimensional plane. One way to explain, if I take two atoms and combine them the original rotation and time energy of each single atom to be of equal time existence. But when combined, their natural state is fused to a new proton level with a mass energy release, therefor the time rotation changes...the existence changes and Time verifies that change by it's modified existence. Also, even in music... the harmonics of the earth cannot be heard, but they do exist. We do understand the accountable action of the earths harmonics and can clock those harmonics. If we create music in 856/4271 time, it still can be clocked, however, simply because we cannot grasp it, nor hear it. It does exist and can be clocked. Radio and satellite waves cannot be seen, but they do exist. We do clock the hertz of distance and travel and decibel, therefore it does exist. Space Time only occurs in the instant that existence occurs, it is not the space that exists, it is the accountable existence that is clocked through space. This explains the paradoxes of how manipulations of space time do or do not exist. Distance is simply measured by time for existence, not because it is space. When viewing the anomaly of the big bang, Time will have occurred prior to this event. The necessity of matter and existence is relevant to the event. And on the topic of the discovery of dark matter is as follows: When looking at the higher dimensional action of the parallel orbifold planes or M-Planes... resulting of the collision the accountable action ( hence Time) will articulate validation of Dark Matter. The existent body can be clocked, in it's natural state, but when it collides we can confirm existence by discovering it's clock-able altered existence. Still today there is much controversy about time and the paradoxes with Time. Lynds States the following:

{Lynds analysis leads to his conclusions, including:

(1) A body (micro and macroscopic) in relative motion does not have a precisely determined relative position at any time, and all physical magnitudes are not precisely determined at any time, although with the parameter and boundary of their respective position and magnitude being determinable up to the limits of possible measurement as stated by the general quantum hypothesis and Heisenberg uncertainty principle [Wheeler 1983], but with this indeterminacy in precise value not being a consequence of quantum uncertainty. (2) Imaginary time is not compatible with a consistent physical description (3) Lastly, chronons, proposed particles of indivisible intervals of time, also appear to be superseded on a theoretical basis, as their possible existence is incompatible with the simple conclusion that the very reason physical continuity is possible is due to there not being a quantum or atom of time. ('Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs Discontinuity' for Mathematical Modeling) }

So there is an undecided notion that due to complication and paradoxes, equivocally there is no atom of time. But if you look at Lynds Summary.. he asks the very question of my resolution. {Peter Lynds summarizes the position that he refutes as follows: Detailed calculations have been completed in the theoretical field of quantum cosmology in an attempt to elucidate how time may have emerged and congealed out of the quantum foam and highly contorted space-time geometrys and chaotic conditions preceding Planck scale [Gh/c3]1/2 just after the big bang (new inflationary model). More specifically, it has been tentatively hypothesized that it would require special initial quantum configurations for the crystallization of time and the emergence of macroscopic (non-quantum) phenomena to be possible. Lynds explains [p.352]: As soon as there is any magnitude of space (as a property of mass-energy), you naturally get the time dimension by default. If there is no mass-energy, there is no space-time. Because the reason continuity is possible is due to there not being a physical instant and physical progression of time [Lynds main conclusions], it is not necessary for time to emerge in the first instance.  The more appropriate question remains: how mass-energy, and as such space-time, can emerge, simultaneously bringing continuity with it due to the absence of a physical instant and physical progression of time; i.e. temporality or continuity would only be required to emerge from possible initial quantum configurations, states or histories

in which time were a physical quantity. Lynds then argues [p.352]: This conclusion illustrates that temporality wouldnt need to emerge at all, but would be present and naturally inherent in practically all initial quantum states and configurations, rather than a specific few, or special one, and regardless of how microscopic the scale. ('Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs Discontinuity' for Mathematical Modeling) }

Now to address the issues that real mathematics or imaginary numbers...can be relative when it can be compared and constant. The measurement of anything imaginary must be in existence to be measurable. Because Time is the accountable action of existence. Time cannot be quantified until existence is quantified. At this point, there will not be a crystallization or a physical atom of time, it will only directly account for the quantification. Hence that string, linear, circular theories can be applied to mathematics but in truth, they fail the fact of a true existence and cannot be validated by time until they can be applied to the physical plain. it is the human ego that over emphasises the fact of time, our value and understanding in science and mathematics is purely physical, and while there are fields and plains that are undetermined at this time and anomalies that occur, by realizing the physical, it precedes all other values and time is it's accountable action. When the anomalies occur, by validation and comparisons, there will be greater understanding and validations with the accountable action it is necessary to focus on the existence of all levels rather than time, by developing and exploring existence, you will get validation with time. Also, With special relativity, Einstein understood that each observer will have their own plane of simultaneity, which contains a unique set of events that constitutes the observer's present moment. Observers moving at different relative velocities have different planes of simultaneity hence different sets of events that are present. Each observer considers their set of present events to be a three dimensional universe but even the slightest movement of the head or offset in distance between observers can cause the three dimensional universes to have differing content. If each three dimensional universe exists then the existence of multiple three dimensional universes suggests that the universe is four dimensional. The argument is named after the discussions by Rietdijk(1966)[1] and Putnam(1967)[2]. It is sometimes called the Rietdijk-Putnam-Penrose argument. With this situation, or all really.... Time being the accountable action would not put an additional dimension in our field of existence, however because existence is verifiable with time, the occurrences would be simultaneous but existing in it's own scale of existence, explaining why two observers can experience levels of difference in relation to timed events

Now for an analytical view: Time is not the problem Authors: Olaf Dreyer (Submitted on 22 Apr 2009) Abstract: Attempts to quantize general relativity encounter an odd problem. The Hamiltonian that normally generates time evolution vanishes in the case of general relativity as a result of diffeomorphism invariance. The theory seems to be saying that time does not exist. The most obvious feature of our world, namely that time seems to progress and that the world changes accordingly becomes a problem in this presumably fundamental theory. This is called the problem of time. In this essay we argue that this problem is the result of an unphysical idealization. We are caught in this "problem of time" trap because we took a wrong turn in the early days of relativity by permanently including a split of geometry and matter into our physical theories. We show that another possibility exists that circumvents the problem of time and also sheds new light on other problems like the cosmological constant problem and the horizon problem in early universe cosmology. He also states in discussion with all the relative degrees of problems with time:

What then is the nature of time that we are proposing? In internal relativity time appears in two different ways. The first notion of time would be completely familiar to a Newtonian physicist. This time is the background time of the theory. The second notion of time would be less familiar to a Newtonian physicist. It arises because the presence of a background time does not imply that an observer has access to it. Rather, the behavior of matter determines what the observers will measure. As we have seen this means that the internal time as it is measured by an observers differs from the background time.

With this I understand that with Newtonian theory, it creates a background of Time, or possibly the foreshadow of the implication of the impact that matter has on time. Because the background time is not accessible. To render it as a background of time, would mean that in all events of matter it lays a shadow before time is subjected to matter. However, if matter ( existence ) required a check-sum to articulate the pattern and uniformity across the universe. Then I would see it as a pretence calculation as opposed to a background image of time. Meaning that time is propagated by the assimilated pattern of matter, the pattern or behavior of matter is what is elusive. the existence and development of matter is only accountable when it can be validated by time.

Also, Kelley R Ross PHD says:

Apart from a shake-up over the geometry of space, there has been another surprise in recent cosmology. An article in the January 1999 Scientific American, "Surveying Space-time with Supernovae" [Craig J. Hogan, Robert P. Kirshner, and Nicholas B. Suntzeff, pp. 46-51], discusses observational data that seems to indicate that the expansion of the universe has accelerated over time, not decelerated as it should under the influence of gravity alone. This implies the existence of Einstein's "Cosmological Constant" or some other exotic force that would override the attraction of gravity. It also may clear up another peculiarity about "standard" cosmology that had been swept under the rug. That is, all closed universes, where deceleration would be enough to produce a collapse into the "Big Crunch," preferred by cosmologists like Stephen Hawking, would have to be younger than 2/3 of the Hubble Time (1/H). This would also mean that no objects in the universe could have a red shift larger than 2/3 of the velocity of light (c), since the red shift gives us the distance in proportion to the Hubble Radius (c/H), and also the age in proportion to the Hubble Time. Thus, in the diagram at right, all the universes under the green curve are closed, and all those above the green curve are open. Now, many quasars have red shifts larger than 2/3 c. Many are even over 90% of c. This has been prima facie evidence since the 70's that the universe was open, but nobody of any influence seems to have noticed. Now, however, if the universe is accelerating, then all possible universes are above the straight red line in the diagram which indicates the Hubble Constant. They will all be older than the Hubble Time. This suddenly makes it quite reasonable that very old objects, like many quasars, would have very, very large red shifts. Indeed, the Big Bang itself would appear to be receding faster than the velocity of light -- it would have an infinite red shift. So again we have an object lesson in the history of science, that a careful examination of the implications of a theory is sometimes neglected by professional science. Inconsistencies can be revealed by even a lay examination.

My idea does not validate truth, however it is applicable in the understanding.

In conclusion he states;

Just because the math works doesn't mean that we understand what is happening in nature. Every physical theory has a mathematical component and a conceptual component, but these two are often confused. Many speak as though the mathematical component confers understanding, this even after decades of the beautiful mathematics of quantum mechanics obviously conferring little understanding. The mathematics of Newton's theory of gravity were beautiful and successful for two centuries, but it conferred no understanding about what gravity was. Now we actually have two competing ways of understanding gravity,

either through Einstein's geometrical method or through the interaction of virtual particles in quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, there is often still a kind of deliberate know-nothing-ism that the mathematics is the explanation. It isn't. Instead, each theory contains a conceptual interpretation that assigns meaning to its mathematical expressions. In non-Euclidean geometry and its application by Einstein, the most important conceptual question is over the meaning of "curvature" and the ontological status of the dimensions of space, time, or whatever. The most important point is that the ontological status of the dimensions involved with the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic curvature is a question entirely separate from the mathematics. It is also, to an extent, a question that is separate from science--since a scientific theory may work quite well without out needing to decide what all is going on ontologically. Some realization of this, unfortunately, leads people more easily to the conclusion that science is conventionalistic or a social construction than to the more difficult truth that much remains to be understood about reality and that philosophical questions and perspectives are not always useless or without meaning. Philosophy usually does a poor job of preparing the way for science, but it never hurts to ask questions. The worst thing that can ever happen for philosophy, and for science, is that people are so overawed by the conventional wisdom in areas where they feel inadequate (like math) that they are actually afraid to ask questions that may imply criticism, skepticism, or, heaven help them, ignorance. These observations about Einstein's Relativity are not definitive answers to any questions; they are just an attempt to ask the questions which have not been asked. Those questions become possible with a clearer understanding of the separate logical, mathematical, psychological, and ontological components of the theory of non-Euclidean geometry. The purpose, then, is to break ground, to open up the issues, and to stir up the complacency that is all too easy for philosophers when they think that somebody else is the expert and understands things quite adequately. It is the philosopher's job to question and inquire, not to accept somebody else's word for somebody else's understanding.

In conclusion,

This is not just a crazy over the night idea, I have spent over 30 years working to understand science with the constants and variables that are attributed. I am not a mathematician, I am not a philosopher, I am not anything or anyone other than just an observer. And this is what I see and understand. And opposed to claiming it is truth, it is just an idea, I do believe it does apply to all things in a physical and perceived existence.

To add to this, I have been reading in metaphysics and have compiled the following ideas, Understanding that Metaphysics is an understanding of being and the world. I have come to realize that in every reality of our present situation, that in fact we only mathematically, medically and socially monitor and understand the process of either being or the world. The reason this is possible is because we have existence and therefore can attribute our processes to the accountable action. Let me explain...

If we were truly on the brink of understanding our being or the world, or even the universe, we would in fact have full knowledge and accountability for the beginning and the end of all things, as well as having the ability to understand how in every specimen that no two live existences are alike. We have no understanding why one will live and one will die given the same course of existence. If suppose we use string theory and put in all subsequent variables, you must understand that mathematically you will consistently in every second of life, will be required to recalibrate every known algorithm and variable for all living things to co exist. It would appear much like a glob of omnidirectional chaos, utterly lost and most certainly not corresponding with any level of time.

Additionally, to understand that all matter and organisms radiate, consume or emit electromagnetics. We Must understand first that the elements and the exposures as well as existence will be more attuned to finding solutions rather than driving science through time. Time only validates existence. whether it is a black hole, unconsumed space, dark matter, a universe or a new cancer growth. There is a timetable for all elements and levels of existence. It is atrocious for me to see that our egos, assume that time is a human factor, or even that we can manipulate it to work for what we want. It is not devised by us. it is the only mappable source we have with the elements.I feel that the mathmatics are trying to put digits to life and there are too many variable in life for math. Some are systematic, however some life forms are egnimatic to the elements or congruent with them, and that is just the beginning.

The most impeccable evidence, is in the ancient calenders. Even basing and converting their calender to our calculations. We arrive to the knowledge that our planet sustained a 120 day year. This means that the total global surface was much smaller and had been justified by the auto calculation of the globular status in the universe. We just observed it. That is all we are able to do. We observe the existence through its process. Time is only the accountable action of existence.

If we continue on our current path, I feel that much of our efforts as a race, will be wasted by continuing to complicate what facet time fits with this or that type of science. You will find more information by working with the natural living processes rather than implementing a factor that already is omni-present in all things.